(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.22 2015고정996

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.22 2015고정996

업무방해

Text

1. The Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

2. The Defendants did not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the president of the council of occupants' representatives of the D apartment in the same ducheon-si, and the defendant B is the head of the management office of the victim E.

On September 26, 2014, around 14:00, the Defendants:10 employees of F, an entrusted management company that entered into a new entrusted management contract with the apartment management office, and approximately 30 residents, left the victim who was performing duties in the head of the management office, and the following facts charged are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the victims brought the victim out of the management office or the submitted evidence alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In order to prevent the victim from entering the room by replacing the entrance door of the management office and the net locks in the management office room, it interfered with the victim's duties as the director of the management office by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. On-site video images;

1. 공동주택 관리 위수탁계약서, 내용증명, 공동주택위수탁롼리계약 해지통보의 건 법령의 적용

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes. Article 314 (Selection of Fine)

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively, of the provisional payment order

1. Determination on the assertion that the crime of interference with business does not constitute a constituent element

A. Since the council of occupants' representatives terminates a contract with the entrusted management company to which the victim belongs by lawfully terminating the contract, there is no duty to obstruct the victim.

In addition, the defendants' act is merely securing various documents and other materials stored in the management office office in order to transfer the business to a new entrusted management company, and it does not constitute an act of interference with business, and there is no risk of the result.

B. Determination also belongs to the victim as alleged by the Defendants.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.03 2015고정1105

-제주지방법원 2019.08.22 2019노30

-울산지방법원 2016.12.13 2016고단3947

-의정부지방법원 2016.04.22 2015노2844

-서울북부지방법원 2018.01.11 2017고정826